UBRARIBS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries http://www.archive.org/details/interviewofstanlOOblan 2 DEWEY HB31 .M415 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Economics Working Paper Series Interview of Stanley Fischer By Olivier Blanchard Working Paper 05-1 April 1 9, 2005 Room E52-251 50 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 021 42 This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Networl< Paper Collection at http://ssrn.com/abstract=707821 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY APR 2 6 2005 LIBRARIES Interview of Stanley Fischer, by Olivier Blanchard.i Abstract Stanley Fischer is a macroeconomist par excellence. After three careers, the first in academia at Chicago, and at MIT, the second at the World Bank and at the International Monetary Fund, the third in the private sector at Citigroup, he is starting a fourth, as the head of the Central Bank of Israel. This interview, to be published in Macroeconomic Dynamics, took place in April 2004, before the start of his fourth career. This interview took place long before Stan had any idea he would become Governor of the Bank of Israel, a position he took up in May 2005. We have not changed the text to reflect this latest stage. Introduction. The interview took place in April 2004 in my office at the Russell Sage Foundation in New York City, where I was spending a sabbatical year. We completed it while running together in Central Park during the following weeks. Our meeting at Russell Sage was just like the many meetings we have had over the years. I was not sitting with a Master of the Universe, a world VIP, but with the same Stan Fischer I had first met in 1973 when he was a young associate professor, fi-eshly imported firom Chicago. There was the same abihty to listen carefully, the same ability to talk and to explain simply and straightforwardly. In addition there was the accumulated wisdom of a professional life spent developing and applying macroeconomics to the very real world. When I arrived as a PhD student at MIT in 1973, it was clear that Stan would quickly play a central role in the department. Within a few years, he was one of the most popular teachers, and one of the most popular thesis advisers. We flocked to his office, and I suspect that the only time for research he had was during the night. What we admired most were his technical skills—he knew how to use stochastic calculus... — , his ability to take on big questions, and to simplify them to the point where the answer, ex-post, looked obvious. When Rudi Dombusch joined him in 1975, macro and international quickly became the most exciting fields at MIT. Imitation is the most sincere form of admiration, and this is very much what we all did. When I came back to MIT in 1982, this time as a faculty member, Stan had acquired near-guru status. Teaching the advanced macro courses with him, and writing ' 'Lectures on macroeconomics", which we finished in 1988, was one of the most exciting intellectual adventures of my life. We both felt there was a new macroeconomics, more micro-founded and full of promises, that we understood its architecture and its usefulness. While we had not thought of it as a textbook, it quickly became one, and it is nice to know that it still sells surprisingly well today. As the years had passed, Stan had taken more and more interest in applying theory to the real world, working with Rudi on hyperinflations, being involved in the economics of peace with George Shultz in the Middle East. In 1988, he decided to jump fi-om academia to the real world, and became Chief Economist of the World Bank. After a brief return to MIT, he then returned to Washington in 1994 to become First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, where he remained until 2001. That part of his hfe has been well documented in newspapers and magazines: While at the IMF, he was on the front lines during the Mexican crisis, the Russian crisis, the Asian crises, and many others. From the peeks I got of him during those times, what strikes me most is how he remained the same as he had been at MIT: calm, careful about the facts, analytical, using macroeconomic theory even in the middle of the most intense fires. Many thought and hoped that he would become the managing director of the IMF. Antiquated rules and country politics prevented it from happening. The IMF loss turned out to be the private sector's gain. In 2002, Stan joined Citigroup, where he is the President of Citigroup International. He is still active in macro policy debates, and remains one of the wise men of our profession. Interview. O: When and why did you decide to go into economics? I was a schoolboy in what was then Southern Rhodesia, later Rhodesia, later yet Zimbabwe. The educational system was British, which meant you had to specialize during the last two years of high school. I originally specialized in physics, math, and chemistry, thinking I would become an engineer or maybe a scientist or a mathematician. At some point I had a conversation with the son of friends of my parents. He had studied at the LSE, and told me 1 should become an economist. He gave me a few lessons, which were interesting - 1 think we used Samuelson's introductory book. Also, amazingly enough, I took an economics course during my last year at high school. O: An economics course in high school. This sounds very unusual. Well, this was the British sixth form, where students have to specialize. The teacher was extremely good. We studied Hicks' Social Framework, and I was introduced to Keynes. In the vacation between school and college I read the General Tlieory and was hooked by Keynes' use of language, although I'm not sure I understood the book. I had decided to study in England and ended up at the LSE. O: Why LSE? Why not the US? We didn't think of the US then. For us England was the center of the universe. My teachers told me the choice was Cambridge or the LSE. I ended up at the LSE partly because the person who had introduced me to the subject had gone there and partly because they were willing to give me a very early decision (the academic year in the southern hemisphere ends in December instead of June). Although the LSE had the reputation for being left wing, that was not true of the economics. We took very conventional courses. Richard Lipsey taught the first principles course, and he was very good. Frank Paish taught an applied economics course. I recall his showing his slides early in 1963 and saying: "You see it goes up and it goes down and then it goes up again. And that's why we're going to have a balance of payments crisis in 1964. " The crisis took place on the appointed date, and I was very impressed. O: This was an exciting time at LSE. Did you pick up a sense of that excitement? I had a great time at the LSE, this was my first experience of the big world, and I took advantage of London and of the continent. But I was quite unsophisticated about academic life and intellectual life. That was not something you picked up in my high school — good as it was as a teaching institution. I thought the main aim of studying was to get through the exams. In retrospect I realize there was intellectual excitement there at the time. The LSE was then in the midst of the controversy about the Radcliffe committee report. Richard Sayers, who was at the LSE, was the main intellectual force behind the report. It suggested that monetary policy worked, and was later seen as the beginning of the revival of monetary policy in the UK. But it was full of qualifications. It featured a three-gear view of monetary policy: if you changed gear drastically enough, you could have an impact. Still, it marked the end of the period in which it was believed in the UK that monetary policy didn't work, and the beginning of a new era in which monetary policy has increasingly been seen as a powerful driver of the economy. Karl Popper was the dominant force in the philosophy department, and everyone became a Popperian in methodology. Phillips of the Phillips Curve was there, though I didn't take a course from him, but I did see his machine of the economy. And there was a lot of work being done on the Phillips curve. Other memories include a lecture by Bob Solow. He must have been about 40 at the time. But he looked much younger, and was very funny, even in talking about production functions. I remember him saying: "When I say K, I mean . " Kuznets. Capital is that thing that Kuznets measures. I also remember on one occasion being incredibly excited when someone explained to me what an econometric model was. That you could use data to estimate parameters, and then if you put the whole thing together, you had a set of equations that described the economy. That was really exciting, it meant you could control the economy. And it was obvious that was immensely important. At the LSE then you wrote exams only at the end of the first and third years (it was a three year degree), and you didn't get course grades.
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages46 Page
-
File Size-